FORESHOCK

Protocols

Request coverage

Every protocol here carries a dated score and the share of it backed by independently verified evidence. Where that share is still thin the assessment says so, is marked Low-signal rather than given a risk band, and holds every unevidenced category at the neutral midpoint instead of assuming it safe. Every score and its reasoning are free to read; the underlying dependency, incident and audit records are part of a plan. Each reading here is fixed at the date beside it. Re-scoring never stops, but a changed reading reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page, which is what a plan is for. How a score is built, how to read one, and how the rubric was tested against real exploits are all in the methodology.

Coverage grows three ways: protocols Foreshock selects at its own discretion, protocols requested through the Request coverage button, and sponsored assessments delivered on an agreed timeline. No path has a guaranteed date except sponsorship.

Scores run from 0, the safest reading, to 100, the riskiest, where 50 is the neutral midpoint every unverified category is held at. Red marks a protocol scoring 50 or above, the band called Elevated: worse than neutral on the evidence gathered. Amber marks one below it, called Moderate. The boundary is fixed. It does not move as coverage grows, and it is not fitted to any backtest result.

Jupiter Staked SOL

Jupiter Staked SOL official site N/A

Solana

:

  • Evidence: this reading is based on 100% of the scored weight, verified against named sources. Categories without verified data are excluded from the reading, never counted as safe.
  • Validation: measured against 3 comparable incidents/controls in this protocol's TVL, age and category bucket.
In short

Foreshock's independent reading of Jupiter Staked SOL is Elevated risk, 51.0 out of 100, as of 7 September 2026. The largest single contributor to that reading is code characteristics: admin key: an unidentified controlling contract (no single key can act alone; its signers and any delay are unverified), upgradeable without a meaningful timelock. All nine scored categories are backed by verified evidence. Foreshock publishes the reading and the reasoning behind it. It is not a verdict on whether to use this protocol, and it is not investment advice.

Is Jupiter Staked SOL safe?
Foreshock does not answer that as a yes or a no. Its independent reading of Jupiter Staked SOL is Elevated risk, 51.0 out of 100, as of 7 September 2026, led by code characteristics: admin key: an unidentified controlling contract (no single key can act alone; its signers and any delay are unverified), upgradeable without a meaningful timelock. The score and the reasoning are published in full so the reading can be checked rather than trusted.
Has Jupiter Staked SOL been audited?
5 audits/contests on record, most recent (Halborn (upstream SPL Stake Pool program, INHERITED, not commissioned by Jupiter or Sanctum), 2023-12-31) has unread findings, scored as unknown, not assumed clean. An audit describes the code at the time it was reviewed. It is not a statement that the protocol is safe today.
Who controls Jupiter Staked SOL?
Admin key: an unidentified controlling contract (no single key can act alone; its signers and any delay are unverified), upgradeable without a meaningful timelock. Top 10 holders control 66.28%, adjusted figure may still include pooled custody (untagged exchanges, infrastructure contracts) due to tagging coverage limits; exclusions require positive identification.
Has Jupiter Staked SOL been exploited before?
No known own or inherited incidents. Foreshock records an incident against a protocol whether it originated there or was inherited from something it depends on.
When was this Jupiter Staked SOL assessment last updated?
7 September 2026. Readings are recomputed as evidence changes, and every category carries the date of the evidence behind it.
Score by categories
Code characteristics11.2

Admin key: an unidentified controlling contract (no single key can act alone; its signers and any delay are unverified), upgradeable without a meaningful timelock.

Audit profile9.9

5 audits/contests on record, most recent (Halborn (upstream SPL Stake Pool program, INHERITED, not commissioned by Jupiter or Sanctum), 2023-12-31) has unread findings, scored as unknown, not assumed clean.

Dependency risk9.0

Uses 1 oracle (jupSOL's risk is concentration risk in three layers, all of them documented by Jupiter itself. First, the exchange rate needs no oracle: 'the number of JupSOL in your wallet stays the same' while 'each JupSOL becomes redeemable for more SOL over time', with rewards from inflation, MEV and priority fees. Second, the validator: Jupiter's own guide says 'JupSOL represents staked Solana (SOL) tokens with Jupiter's validator, which is hosted and managed by Triton', so this is a single-validator LST with a named third-party infrastructure operator, not a diversified stake pool. Third, the operator: Jupiter's own FAQ says 'Sanctum handles day-to-day management of the pool (delegation of deposited SOL)' and that 'The management authority (held by Sanctum) cannot access user funds, even if compromised', though Sanctum's own docs concede that authority can raise fees within program-enforced caps. Fees per Jupiter's current docs: 0 percent SOL deposit, 0.1 percent withdrawal, 0 percent management, 5 percent validator commission on inflation rewards, 0 percent MEV commission, plus a 5 percent Sanctum epoch fee on base staking rewards split evenly between Sanctum and the Jupiter DAO treasury. Note an inconsistency between Jupiter's own sources: its older hub guide states a 0.1 percent DEPOSIT fee and 0 percent withdrawal, the reverse of the current docs. Exit paths are instant swap, a roughly two-day delayed unstake, or instant conversion to a native stake account. One thing NOT established: Sanctum documents a Reserve of over 600k SOL providing backstop liquidity at a dynamic 8 to 800 basis point fee, but neither Jupiter's nor Sanctum's docs say jupSOL routes through it, so no Reserve dependency is recorded.), composable with 4 other protocols.

Governance attack surface7.5

Top 10 holders control 66.28%, adjusted figure may still include pooled custody (untagged exchanges, infrastructure contracts) due to tagging coverage limits; exclusions require positive identification.

TVL profile3.5

TVL change (41%) is within a stable range.

Bug bounty3.2

No bug bounty program on record.

Team factors3.0

Anonymous team, a weak but real signal on its own.

Historical incidents2.2

No known own or inherited incidents.

Protocol age1.5

752 days live, past the ~1yr floor; treated the same as any older protocol, not scored progressively safer with more age.

Assets held (1)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Dependencies (2)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Incident history (0)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Audit history (5)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Also covered on Solana

This assessment follows Foreshock's published methodology. Exact category weights, scoring rules, thresholds, and aggregation logic are proprietary and not shown here. How to interpret this assessment

This reading will change.

This reading is fixed at the date above it, and it stays there. We keep re-scoring Jupiter Staked SOL as the evidence moves, a new audit, a changed admin control, an incident, and this page is free to read and always will be. The updated reading is what a plan buys: you are told by email on the day it changes, instead of finding out the next time you happen to look.

Get told when this changesBrowse every protocol